Avoiding the question

Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
again, you did not answer the question.

name one person who has been forced to open a public store rather than a private one.

name the store and its location.

thanks, spaMBLA.
Click to expand...

If a person has to chose between being forced to call their property a "public store" or a private club and there is not any option of declining either without a repercussion involving force from the overlords, the answer becomes self evident.


You're welcome, Poopy Pants.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
If a person has to chose between being forced to call their property a "public store" or a private club and there is not any option of declining either without a repercussion involving force from the overlords, the answer becomes self evident.


You're welcome, Poopy Pants.
Click to expand...
again, you did not answer the question.

name one person who has been forced to open a public store rather than a private one.

name the store and its location.

thanks, spaMBLA.
 
heckler73

heckler73

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
Silly you. The fact that your government has defined Wendy's must be one or the other is self evident that force is involved. You might recall that your government doesn't ask politely, they back up all their "suggestions" with a threat of force for noncompliance.

So, Mr. Poopy Pants you see, force is involved, it's very evident, if you lift your eyes from those boots you are licking you might even see it.
Click to expand...

Mr. Speaker,

Who enforces contract law in this Utopia as suggested by the opposition? The McDonald's/GE/Chevy "judicial system" ? :lol: What about the Chevron/Raytheon/Smith&Wesson courts? Would they not be "better"?
I suggest the member opposite should spend more time fighting gravity, instead...that's the only real force which is keeping his party down.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
heckler73 said:
Mr. Speaker,

Who enforces contract law in this Utopia as suggested by the opposition? The McDonald's/GE/Chevy "judicial system" ? :lol: What about the Chevron/Raytheon/Smith&Wesson courts? Would they not be "better"?
I suggest the member opposite should spend more time fighting gravity, instead...that's the only real force which is keeping his party down.
Click to expand...

Good question. Certainly contracts that are voluntarily entered into should have a means for enforcement and arbitration if any disputes arise. That would still need to happen. and it would in a free market. Maybe I'll start a thread delving into that some day.

How is it that involuntary ahem "contracts" are an integral part of the existing coercive monopoly (government) and this seems to have escaped your attention or disdain?
 
heckler73

heckler73

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
Good question. Certainly contracts that are voluntarily entered into should have a means for enforcement and arbitration if any disputes arise. That would still need to happen. and it would in a free market. Maybe I'll start a thread delving into that some day.

How is it that involuntary ahem "contracts" are an integral part of the existing coercive monopoly (government) and this seems to have escaped your attention or disdain?
Click to expand...
Mr. Speaker,

I would like to remind the member opposite this issue has been raised on several occasions in the past and was never summarily addressed. It leaves one to question the depth of which the member opposite is even aware of the logistical and logical issues surrounding his beliefs considering the time granted to contemplation. The fact of the matter is without a government to enforce contract law, there would be no contract law, with the "free-market" imploding upon itself in destructive practices and faux litigation proceedings.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
heckler73 said:
Mr. Speaker,

I would like to remind the member opposite this issue has been raised on several occasions in the past and was never summarily addressed. It leaves one to question the depth of which the member opposite is even aware of the logistical and logical issues surrounding his beliefs considering the time granted to contemplation. The fact of the matter is without a government to enforce contract law, there would be no contract law, with the "free-market" imploding upon itself in destructive practices and faux litigation proceedings.
Click to expand...
You raise a good question, but have made an erroneous assumption.

I've recommended several times in the past here at RIU that people read about 11 pages from a book when discussing what you have brought up..

In order for me to elaborate at length, the person I'm speaking to needs a fundamental understanding of why what you have posited is an inaccurate assumption. I don't say that to be a dick either.

The book I list below is available in multiple places online and as an audio book. If you are genuinely interested check out.

Market For Liberty by Linda and Morris Tannehille

Your questions are answered here - Chapter 7. Arbitration of Disputes PAGES 65- 76
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
You raise a good question, but have made an erroneous assumption.

I've recommended several times in the past here at RIU that people read about 11 pages from a book when discussing what you have brought up..

In order for me to elaborate at length, the person I'm speaking to needs a fundamental understanding of why what you have posited is an inaccurate assumption. I don't say that to be a dick either.

The book I list below is available in multiple places online and as an audio book. If you are genuinely interested check out.

Market For Liberty by Linda and Morris Tannehille

Your questions are answered here - Chapter 7. Arbitration of Disputes PAGES 65- 76
Click to expand...
Dude. Nobody wants to read this crap. That is all it is too. I wouldn't even wipe my ass with it. He made no errors, he understands Anarchocapitalism better than you do. Just retort with your own words.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
Dude. Nobody wants to read this crap. That is all it is too. I wouldn't even wipe my ass with it. He made no errors, he understands Anarchocapitalism better than you do. Just retort with your own words.
Click to expand...

Have you read that chapter? Can you answer honestly?
 
heckler73

heckler73

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
The book I list below is available in multiple places online and as an audio book. If you are genuinely interested check out.

Market For Liberty by Linda and Morris Tannehille

Your questions are answered here - Chapter 7. Arbitration of Disputes PAGES 65- 76
Click to expand...

Madame Speaker, (note the shift change)

I wish to point out for the House how the referenced material hinges upon several weak supports which utilize force, contrary to what the member opposite believes.

However, before those issues arise, it behooves me to point out the foundation of this element of laissez-faire capitalism rests upon the same erroneous arguments utilized by the financial sector in the lead-up to the GFC of 2008-9; that being the principle of rational self-interest. First, there is no "rational" agent model which represents homo economicus. Second, the concept of "self-interest" is perhaps more accurately described by the term, greed. As I am sure the House comprehends, the very nature of greed--by definition--precludes any hint of altruistic rationality.

In light of the preceding, I would like to ask the House how it could be possible such a system, as that proposed by the member opposite, would be practically functional if it is neither "rational" nor "interested" beyond its "self".

In closing, this idea as suggested has no merit, and only fosters greater inefficiency through the multiplicative redundancy of "private systems" of law. It is a terrible idea which seeks to create a lampoon of justice, rather than a solid foundation for protecting rights. I will not be supporting this bill and I would ask the other House members to follow suit and vote against the motion.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
heckler73 said:
Madame Speaker, (note the shift change)

I wish to point out for the House how the referenced material hinges upon several weak supports which utilize force, contrary to what the member opposite believes.

However, before those issues arise, it behooves me to point out the foundation of this element of laissez-faire capitalism rests upon the same erroneous arguments utilized by the financial sector in the lead-up to the GFC of 2008-9; that being the principle of rational self-interest. First, there is no "rational" agent model which represents homo economicus. Second, the concept of "self-interest" is perhaps more accurately described by the term, greed. As I am sure the House comprehends, the very nature of greed--by definition--precludes any hint of altruistic rationality.

In light of the preceding, I would like to ask the House how it could be possible such a system, as that proposed by the member opposite, would be practically functional if it is neither "rational" nor "interested" beyond its "self".

In closing, this idea as suggested has no merit, and only fosters greater inefficiency through the multiplicative redundancy of "private systems" of law. It is a terrible idea which seeks to create a lampoon of justice, rather than a solid foundation for protecting rights. I will not be supporting this bill and I would ask the other House members to follow suit and vote against the motion.
Click to expand...


Do they utilize offensive force or defensive force?

Also, you are comparing two different things when you compare a government regulated market and an actual free market. They are not the same thing.

No, rational self interest is not based in greed. Greed is what occurs when a single authoritarian model prevents other competitors from even existing. That is what occurs now.

Self interest can, and often is based in serving your interests without trampling on others rights to do the same. In fact in a free market exchange, BOTH parties serve their self interests or they wouldn't have engaged in the free market trade, where both parties enter into a trade and both are satisfied with the outcome.

Curious...did you read what I had suggested? If you did thank you. If not, you might want to.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
What part of privatized courts, police and armies do you not understand cheetoh fingered, fedora wearing neckbeard?
Click to expand...
Are you advocating for a single coercive based monopoly to be the sole arbiter of disputes, "Anarchist" ?

Are you saying that a person that has an allegiance to the state is the best person to arbitrate a dispute?
 
Harrekin

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
As much as this is a nice ruse, I'm pretty sure it's just me and Buck (and his legion of socks) posting on this forum.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top